DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 9 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ouderkirk (US 2018/0003892) in view of Van Hees et al. (US 2005/0007753).
Regarding claim 1, Ouderkirk discloses a display device (see figures 1A-1B, 8 and 10, for instance) comprising: a display panel (1085); an illumination device (1001) which faces the display panel (1085); and an optical sheet (1080) provided between the display panel (1085) and the illumination device (1001), wherein the illumination device (1001) comprises: a plurality of light sources (1070; [0020]: “The light source may be, for example, a plurality of light emitting diodes (LEDs) disposed to inject light into an edge of the light guide.”); a first light guide (1010) which has a first side surface facing the plurality of light sources (1070), and a second side surface (facing 1030) on a side opposite to the first side surface; a second light guide (1020) which faces the first light guide (1010) and has a third side surface; a transparent element (including 130, 140) which has a first plane (132, 144) being in contact with the second side surface and the third side surface (see figure 1B, see also [0057]: “Folded light guide article 1001 can be made by folding a foldable article similar to article 100 of FIG. 1A, for example.”), and a second plane (angled edge of 140 or 130) located on a side opposite to the first plane and inclining with respect to the first plane; and a reflective element (150) which faces the second plane (see figure 1B, for instance). However, Ouderkirk does not expressly disclose wherein the display panel is a liquid crystal panel.
Van Hees discloses a display device (see figure 1, for instance), wherein the display panel (12) is a liquid crystal display panel ([0080]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a liquid crystal display panel as Van Hees as the display panel of Ouderkirk. The motivation for doing so would have been utilize LCD technology to take up the least possible amount of space, as taught by Van Hees ([0017]).
Regarding claim 9, Ouderkirk in view of Van Hees discloses the display device of claim 1, wherein the second light guide (1020) is provided between the first light guide (1010) and the optical sheet (1080).
Regarding claim 11, Ouderkirk in view of Van Hees discloses the display device of claim 1, wherein the reflective element (150) is a reflective layer formed in the second plane (see figure 1B).
Regarding claim 12, Ouderkirk in view of Van Hees discloses the display device of claim 1, wherein the reflective element (150) is a metallic body or a reflector in which a reflective layer is formed on a surface of a block ([0027]).
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ouderkirk in view of Van Hees, and in further view of Kim (US 2015/0247966).
Regarding claim 10, Ouderkirk in view of Van Hees discloses the display device of claim 1. However, Ouderkirk in view of Van Hees does not expressly disclose wherein the first light guide is provided between the second light guide and the liquid crystal panel.
Kim discloses a display device (see figures 2-3, for instance), wherein the first light guide (230) is provided between the second light guide (240) and the liquid crystal panel (201; [0053]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the first and second light guide configuration as Kim in the display device of Ouderkirk. The motivation for doing so would have been to obtain selectivity of the illumination according to the display need, as a matter of design choice, as taught by Kim ([0024], see MPEP § 2144.04 VI. C.).
Claim(s) 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ouderkirk in view of Van Hees, and in further view of Komura et al. (US 2023/0128012).
Regarding claim 13, Ouderkirk in view of Van Hees discloses the display device of claim 1. However, Ouderkirk in view of Van Hees does not expressly disclose wherein in plan view, each of the second side surface and the third side surfaces includes a first linear portion, a second linear portion which is closer to the first side surface than the first linear portion, and a third linear portion which connects the first linear portion and the second linear portion to each other.
Komura discloses a display device (see figure 6, for instance), wherein in plan view, each of the second side surface and the third side surfaces includes a first linear portion (LB1), a second linear portion (LB1b) which is closer to the first side surface than the first linear portion, and a third linear portion (LB1a) which connects the first linear portion and the second linear portion to each other (see figure 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the first, second and third linear portion configuration as Komura in the display device of Ouderkirk. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide an illumination device which emits light of a uniform luminance distribution, as taught by Komura ([0019]).
Regarding claim 14, Ouderkirk in view of Van Hees, and in further view of Komura discloses the display device of claim 13, wherein the transparent element (130, 140) is provided between the first linear portion (Komura, LB1) and the reflective element (150) and between the second linear portion (Komura, LB1b) and the reflective element (150).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-8 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 15 and 18 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Ouderkirk discloses a display device (see figures 1A-1B, 8 and 10, for instance) comprising: a display panel (1085); an illumination device (1001) which faces the display panel (1085); and an optical sheet (1080) provided between the display panel (1085) and the illumination device (1001), wherein the illumination device (1001) comprises: a plurality of light sources (1070; [0020]: “The light source may be, for example, a plurality of light emitting diodes (LEDs) disposed to inject light into an edge of the light guide.”); a first light guide (1010) which has a first side surface facing the plurality of light sources (1070), and a second side surface (facing 1030) on a side opposite to the first side surface; a second light guide (1020) which has a third side surface; a transparent element (including 130, 140) which has a first plane (132, 144) being in contact with the second side surface and the third side surface (see figure 1B, see also [0057]: “Folded light guide article 1001 can be made by folding a foldable article similar to article 100 of FIG. 1A, for example.”), and a second plane (angled edge of 140 or 130) located on a side opposite to the first plane and inclining with respect to the first plane; an upper surface (146) located on a side facing the optical sheet (1080) between the first plane and the second plane, and a lower surface (136) on a side opposite to the upper surface; and a reflective element (150) which faces the second plane, the second light guide (1020) is provided between the first light guide (1010) and the optical sheet (1080).
Van Hees discloses a display device (see figure 1, for instance), wherein the display panel (12) is a liquid crystal display panel ([0080]).
Kim discloses a display device (see figures 2-3, for instance), wherein the first light guide (230) is provided between the second light guide (240) and the liquid crystal panel (201; [0053]).
However, Ouderkik in view of Van Hees and in further view of Kim does not expressly disclose wherein, in the transparent element, a width of the lower surface is less than a width of the upper surface, or wherein, in the transparent element, a width of the lower surface is greater than a width of the upper surface, nor would it have been obvious to do so in combination.
Claims 16-17 and 19-20 are allowable by virtue of dependency from claims 15 and 18, respectively.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHANAEL R BRIGGS whose telephone number is (571)272-8992. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jennifer Carruth can be reached at (571)-272-9791. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NATHANAEL R BRIGGS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871 7/21/2026
Prosecution Insights